unit_root_analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a support tool, exploratory, and not a formal hypothesis test. This effectively conveys its role and limitations, though it does not describe output structure or side effects, which are less critical for an analysis tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise, with a clear purpose statement, usage note, and parameter list. The repetition about being a support tool could be tightened, but each sentence contributes useful information without excessive verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool without an output schema, the description covers its purpose, position in the workflow, parameter semantics, and key limitations. It could benefit from a brief mention of what the test results look like, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: inp_path (path to .inp file), lam (Box-Cox lambda with specified values), and max_d (highest differencing order). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs ADF + KPSS unit root tests across d = 0 to max_d for selecting the starting differencing order. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming guided_identification as the primary tool and formal_tests for formal hypothesis testing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage guidance: it is a support tool called internally after identification listing, not to be used directly in guided analysis; and it is exploratory, not formal, with an explicit alternative (formal_tests) for formal testing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.